Blog

Limbaugh on evolution

I’m being surrounded on all sides now by friends blogging about Ben Stein’s new film Expelled, a pro-creationist anti-evolution documentary which attempts to legitimise creationism by appealing to its status as the underdog in the science world (see Crawley’s piece here and Ronald Bailey’s Reason piece here for good examples).

The concept reeks of bullshit, of course, but it makes me slightly sad since I’ve always liked Ben Stein. That he’s putting his name to this sort of idiocy is regrettable. I don’t intend to give yet another response to the claims of the film; others like Bailey have already done so, and see also the website Expelled Exposed which goes into more detail.

But I did want to respond to Rush Limbaugh, who displayed colossal ignorance on this matter on his radio show after seeing the movie in a private screening at his home. I look up to Rush as a broadcaster and an entertainer, and even as a pundit when he can be insightful at times (even if often for the wrong reasons). But let’s look at what he said about Expelled, which was not insightful in the least.

I’ll quote directly from the transcript of his show:

“Ben Stein has a new movie out. He brought it by my house Friday afternoon to screen it for me. It’s called Expelled. It is powerful. It is fabulous. And here’s the premise of his movie. The premise is that Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it.”

I’ve always found “Darwinism” a strange term to use to describe the biological process of natural selection as first described by Charles Darwin; we don’t call the theory of relativity ‘Einsteinism’ or the theory of gravity ‘Newtonism’. Only a creationist would use this term to describe the theory of evolution because it makes it sound more sinister if it is an ‘ism’. To describe it as having “taken root, taken hold” is an effort in a similar vein. And if evolution has “taken root” then it has done so by virtue of being the best explanation of the facts in observable science. We may as well describe Einstein’s theory of general relativity as having “taken root, taken hold …. from Great Britain to the United States, you name it.”

“Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.”

Poppycock. This sentence is absolute nonsense, and completely indefensible: many Christians (many evangelical Christians) are happy to acknowledge both the existence of God and the fact of evolution. This statement by Rush claiming otherwise is his most patently ignorant and intellectually revealing on the topic. For the record, the theory of evolution does not even attempt to address the question of whether there is a God or not, and certainly doesn’t attempt to actively deny the existence of God. Theistic evolutionists exist in abundance (this writer is one) and see no conflict between evolutionary theory as an explanation of the origin of complex life on earth and belief in “a supreme being, a higher power, or a God.”

“His interviews with some of the professors who espouse Darwinism are literally shocking. The condescension and the arrogance these people have, they will readily admit that Darwinism and evolution do not explain how life began.”

What? How on earth does a professor saying “Evolution doesn’t explain how life began” constitute “condescension” and “arrogance”? That is an incredibly odd thing to say. Evolution never claimed to explain how life began, jackass! What’s condescending or arrogant about that? This whole segment makes Rush sound like a complete dunderhead (which he’s not). For the record, the theory of evolution explains how life evolves from simple to more complex forms by natural selection. It doesn’t even begin to form an argument about how life came to exist in the first place (that would be theories of abiogenesis, about which nothing has been proven, unlike evolution).

“One of these professors said it might have been that a hyper-intelligence from another planet came here and started our race. This from some professor either in the UK, I forget where it was, but can’t be God.”

The professor he’s describing is Richard Dawkins, the most famous proponent of both evolutionary theory and atheism alive today; to call him “some professor” is indicative of how removed Rush is from the contemporary discourse on this issue (and helps to explain this ill-informed rant). Dawkins’ willingness to mention directed panspermia (alien settlement) is no indictment upon his atheism: he has simply considered and rejected both the idea that aliens began life on earth and the idea that God began life on earth. Therefore Rush is on thin ground to criticise him for it, and it should again be noted that Rush has moved the discussion to Dawkins’ atheism rather than the subject in the film which is the theory of evolution: this criticism (however invalid) is irrelevant to the discussion.

“But the point of it is that these people on the Left are just scared to death of God.”

No, that isn’t the point of it! And I know many evolutionists who aren’t “on the Left.” What Rush has done here represents the fact that there is a correlation in America between political conservatives and evangelical Christians (who hold to a traditional ‘literal’ understanding of Genesis); a significant majority of those in the former category are also in the latter. Rush then sticks up for the embattled evangelical/conservative/literalist/traditionalist by identifying the ‘other side’ as the enemy. This works fairly well in politics, but doesn’t work at all when the discussions also involve theology and science (particularly given the fact that the best science is the most dispassionate – no ‘ism’ should be welcome in science). Doubt this explanation of Rush’s tirade? Observe how he wraps it up:

“We, on the other hand, recognize that our greatness, who we are, our potential, our ambition, our desire, comes from God, and as part of our Creation, this natural yearning to be free and to practice liberty. That is how we think this country came to be great. It is how we think this country will continue to be great and to grow.”

Quinney

Well how can Limbaugh even talk about evolution, it’s completely out of his sphere. It’s not like he’s considered the science. and the same can be said for Ben Stein’s movie in which they made no attempt to consider the science or advance a different theory, it was just assumed that these two (ID and evolution) were equal competing theories without a shred of reason for it.

SQ

Peter Henderson

I think the term “Darwinism” encompases all modern science now, from geology right through to astronomy (Young Earth Creationists are just as opposed to steller evolution as they are to biological evolution) so they probably view Einstien’s ideas as Darwinism as well.

As a Christian I am appalled at how widespread YECism is within the churches here in NI. I cannot understand why so many Christians so readily accept YECism and reject modern science.

Theories such as the “Big Bang” have been confirmed time and time again and the discovery of DNA has proven Darwin’s ideas to be correct, not wrong.

Now it may very well be that science in 100 years time may be completely different to what we know now (as it was 100 years ago) but I cannot possibly imagine either YECism or ID being accepted. How life arose in the first place is certainly something that scientists don’t know. However, I have no doubt that this mystery will be solved through scientific research, eventually.

These people go through life never hearing any real science; their churches screen films from Answers in Genesis and read from creationist authors. It simply never occurs to them that evolution might be entirely compatible with their religious belief. You’re right about the 100-year-out scenario; Christians too will one day look back at creationism in the same manner we now look back at geocentrism.

Sue

Robb

Okay first of all John, there are evolutionists who unequivocally believe that there is no way God created man or anything else and that indeed, life was created spontaneously by chance with somehow inorganic molecules becoming organic through unknown processes. In Expelled, there is a scientist who said that life began on the backs of crystals. So yes, evolution does try to explain the “Origin of Species” as Darwin puts it.

Agree though, that Limbaugh should stick to what he knows (not Oxycontin) and stay away from matters for which he has no business offering opinions.

I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn’t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn’t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn’t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that’s my 2¢ worth 🙂

Hmm, I think we run the risk of confusing evolution (which explains how life became complex) and abiogenesis (which is an early attempt to explain how life first arose). These should not be confused, even though many scientists are indeed atheists who believe they will find the naturalistic means by which life first arose. I’m personally much happier with people who want to look than with people who think ‘God did it’ is a satisfactory explanation and one which invalidates the need to find out if it is correct.

Jacob Lizon

Hey robb, you do know that organic just means that a molecule or compound has carbon or hydrocarbons in it. So no inorganic molecules did not magically turn into organic molecule, they were always organic.

Robert

Jacob, he probably meant from “nonliving” or abiotic to “living” or biotic.

Robb: “I myself, believe that we are here by intelligent design. From basic life we have evolved into the creatures we are now. No we didn’t get here in 5 days, and no Adam wasn’t created and then Eve. THAT just doesn’t make sense. But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life. So that’s my 2¢ worth ”

If you look at the timeline of evolution, you will see that it took a long time for each step of evolution to occur. I mean it took several hundred million years for the first one cell organism(more research will yield a more narrow figure of first life). However, perhaps we will find evidence of life that is dated drastically earlier than the oldest evidence of life currently collected and dated. Also, it took 1,000,000,000 years for one cell life to be accompanied by mult cellular life. Remember one cell organisms multiply very quickly so we are talking not a billion but probably trillions upon trillions of generation. So the macro evolution processes had a lot of time to get things right. Its trial and error. Also, we did not have any really complex life forms(like hundreds or thousands of cells etc) for several more hundred million years and it took hundreds of millions of years more till our oldest primate ancestors came around and then still millions of years more till we came. Why wait so long between steps? and why wait over 3 billion years between earth forming and the forming of the species created in his image? why wait well over what 2 billion years for one cell life to finally become the species that is the focus of gods so called guiding of evolution(homo sapian)? Also, why wait billions of years between the universe forming and the planet forming that will occupy his “children”(humans)?

It just seems so likely that the most plausible involvement of god is the big bang. Everything else took so long. there is no reason for god to wait; however, naturally all these things although highly improbable would based on probability occur with enough trial and error but would likely take an extremely long time(lot of trial and error) and hence we have the information I listed above.

Robert

Robert

Correction, the quote I copied implied that either life started or human lives started in one quick period of time.
“But to me at least, neither does the idea that we spontaneously combusted into life.”

Based on the evolution time line, it took a long time for one cell organisms to come about, a long time for multi cell, a long time for hugely complex organisms, and the same for us. most steps had hundreds of millions of years in between steps. Based on probability, even something unlikely can very likely occur if you have enough attempts. It just seems with all the time each step took that trial and error of nature finally took the next step and so on.

M.L.

It’s important to recognize that Limbaugh is forst and foremost an entertainer, and while I’ve no doubt the right-of-center he espouses on his show largely reflects his actual beliefs, he on occasion panders to certain audience segments, one of which being creationists.

I listened to Limbaugh regularly for the first ten years or so he was on the air, and back in the late 80s and early to mid 90s, he never took swipes at evolution or Darwin. In fact, he once has Charlton Heston on his show reading from Jurassic Park, which was a rare and memorable moment for a show that doesn’t have guests. This was circa 1993. What wa particularly noteworthy about his was that the excerpt Heston read specifically made glowing reference to evolution.

There have been large numbers of evolution denying Bible thumpers on the US for a long time, but it wasn’t the hot button issue it is today. It has become a hot button issue over the past ten hears or so as the lunatic fringe of the religious right has become more influential and the Grand Old Party has become God’s Own Party. They lost me for good by the mid 2000s.

Rush isn’t religious and could care less about creationism or evolution. He’s noted how evolution denial has become a core tenet of mainstream conservative politics so he now attacks evolution as ‘a liberal thing’.

It’s clear he’s been given a primer of sorts on anti-evolution talking points because none of the ‘arguments’ he raises originate with him (it’s all boilerplate Discovery Institute stuff; evolution can’t describe creation, ‘Darwinism’ = atheism, accept micro-evolution while denying macro-evolution, etc.).

He’s definitely gotten more comfortable denying evolution in recent years. He used to choose his words VERY carefully when he addressed the issue, saying just enough to create the impression for the Bible Thumpers in the audience that he was an evolution denier but not enough to alienate those in his audience that accept the facts of evolution by actually denying it. That he no longer fears alienating people in his audience by attacking evolution speaks volumes about the direction the right has gone in over the time his show has been on the air.

The GOP’s tango with science denying evangelicals is definitely alienating a lot more people than they realize. As I’ve already said, they’ve lost me for good, and I know there are a lot like me. I will not support a political party that denies basic science.

This post is a few years old, and the GOP has only gotten crazier and more aggressive in its anti-science agenda in the past few years (just last week a GOP congressman from Georgia -who sits on a house sceince amd technology committee no less – called evolution “a lie from the pit of hell”!).